Coca Cola In India Case Study Analysis Template

In a number of districts of India, Coca Cola and its subsidiaries are accused of creating severe water shortages for the community by extracting large quantities of water for their factories, affecting both the quantity and quality of water. Coca Cola has the largest soft drink bottling facilities in India. Water is the primary component of the products manufactured by the company.

There have been numerous public protests of The Coca-Cola Company’s operations throughout India, involving thousands of Indian citizens and several non-governmental organizations. Protests against the Coco Cola factories have taken place in a number of districts including: Mehdiganj near the holy city of Varanasi; Kala Dera, near Jaipur, Rajistan; Thane district in Maharashtra; and Sivaganga in Tamil Nadu.

The protests by villagers from Plachimada, in the southern state of Kerala have shown the strength of community-led activities, even against this global multi-national company. Through round-the-clock vigils outside the factory gates, they have managed to ‘temporarily’ shut down Coca-Cola’s local bottling plant. As of early 2007, the factory had remained closed for a number of years and a combination of community action and legal redress was aimed at permanent closure.

Background to Coca Cola ground water exploitation case in Kerala

In 1999, the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, a subsidiary of the Atlanta based Coca-Cola company, established a plant in Plachimada, in the Palakkad district of Kerala, southern India. The Perumatty Village Council gave a licence to the company to commence production in 2000. Coca Cola drew around 510,000 litres of water each day from boreholes and open wells. For every 3.75 litres of water used by the plant, it produced one litre of product and a large amount of waste water.

Two years after production began protest by local residents became common place. Local communities complained that water pollution and extreme water shortages were endangering their lives.

In 2003, women from the Vijayanagaram Colony in the village of Plachimada, protested that their wells had dried up because of the over exploitation of groundwater resources by the Coca-cola plant. They complained that they now had to walk nearly five kilometres twice a day to fetch water. They also argued that the little which was left was undrinkable and when used for bathing the water burned their eyes and lead to skin complaints. Aside form these health issues, the depletion of groundwater resources also affected the ability of local residents to raise their crops of rice and coconuts.

In April 2003, the Perumatty Grama Panchayat (Village Council) refused renewal of Coca-Cola’s licence to operate on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to renew the licence stating: “…the excessive exploitation of ground water by the Coca-Cola Company in Plachimada is causing acute drinking water scarcity in Perumatty Panchayat and nearby places…”

The Village Council considered revocation of the licence to be necessary in order to protect the interests of local people.

Permatty Grama Panchayat v state of Kerala

In December 2003, the Village Council’s decision was challenged in the High Court of Kerala State. The Court considered two issues: the question of the over exploitation of ground water, and the justification for the Village Council’s decision to revoke the licence.

The Court recognised that the State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect natural resources. It considered that these resources, meant for public use, cannot be converted into private ownership. The residing judge, Justice K Balakrishnan Nair, asserted that the government had a duty to act to “protect against excessive groundwater exploitation and the inaction of the State in this regard was tantamount to infringement of the right to life of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court ordered the plant to stop drawing the groundwater within a month, ruling that the amount of water extracted by the plant was illegal. But at the same time, it ordered the Village Council to renew the licence and not interfere with the functioning of the Company as long as it was not extracting the prohibited ground water. Coca-Cola refuted the accusations of excessive exploitation and pollution and lodged an appeal.

The next few years saw a confusing array of legal battle between the Village Council and the company.

In 2005, the divisional bench of the High Court granted permission for the company to extract 500,000 litres from the common ground water per day in the year 2005-2006. The Court also affirmed that the Village Council was not justified in cancelling Coca Cola’s licence to operate until a full scientific assessment had been made of the facts.

The Plachimada storyMarch 2000 – Factory established

April 2002 – Agitation by the villagers commences

March 2003 – Village Council refuses to renew licence

May 2003 – State government stays the Village Council decision

Dec 2003 – Single judge bench of the Kerala High court upholds the Village Council’s decision

21 Feb 2004 – The Government ordered the company to stop drawing ground water from the plant

12 March 2004 – Coca Cola company suspended production saying it was “left with no option but to close the factory down in the long run”

29 March 2004 – Village Council refused to renew licences again saying company had failed to meet conditions to: stop using ground water; demonstrate that its products were safe, and prove the non-toxicity of its solid waste

April 2005 – A High Court Division Bench allows appeal by Coca Cola and permits the company to draw 500,000 litres of water per day. Orders the Village Council to renew licence

May 2005 – Village Council files special leave petition in the Supreme Court

1 June 2005 – Company approaches the High Court again as the Village Council did not renew the licence. The court orders Village Council to renew the licence within 7 days, or it would be deemed that the licence stands renewed for two years from 10 June 2004

6 June 2005 – Village Council informs the company that licence will be renewed for three months; asks them to remit the fee and collect licence

17 August 2005 – A group of about 100 activists from Yuvajana Vedi youth organisation march to factory gates. Heavy police force severely injured 4 protestors who were hospitalised and arrested 43 activists

19 August 2005 – The Kerala State Pollution Control Board ordered the stoppage of production at the Plachimada factory for failure to comply with pollution control norms

15 September 2005 – Kerala State Government lends its support for the people against the company

November 2005 – High Court rejects the company’s petition that since Village Council did not keep up the stipulated time frame, it should be deemed that the licence stands renewed for two years. The company ought to have accepted the opportunity to function for three months. But the court again orders the Village Council to renew the licence

November 2005 – Village Council files against the latest High Court order in the Supreme Court

4 Jan 2006 – Village Council reissued a licence to the company for three months but laid out thirteen conditions, the first of which is that the company shall not use groundwater from Perumatty Panchayat for industrial purposes, or for producing soft drinks, aerated carbonate beverages or fruit juice

June 2006 – Meeting with community leaders ends in major commitment from Kerala state officials for pro-active action against Coca Cola

10 August and 11 August 2006, the Government of Kerala and the State Food (Health) Authority, respectively, banned the manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola in the State on the grounds that it was unsafe

September 2006 – High Court of Kerala set aside the orders of the Government of Kerala and the State Food (Health) Authority

SOURCES: Based on article by P.N. Venugopal, 27 Jan 2006, Quest Features and Footage, Kerala, cited on Together India website, with additional information from Asian News International 20 August 2005; the Hindu Newspaper 20 August 2005; the Indian Resource Centre, 17 August, 2005; The Hindu newspaper, 25 October, 2005; Coca Cola Company Website, Press releases.

In August 2005, the plant was closed once again, this time by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Board had sought clarification from Coca Cola of the excessive amount of Cadmium in the effluent. G Raja Mohan, the President of Kerala State Pollution Control Board stated: “In the waste water treatment sludges we have found contents of Cadmium abnormally high. It goes up to 600 percent above the permissible limit. In the ground water the content of Cadmium is not that much. So, there is something which they are using in the raw materials.”

In October 2005, the State Government of Kerala announced it would support the Village Council local activists by challenging Coca Cola’s right to extract water from common groundwater resources in the Supreme Court of India. In an official press release, Health Minister K. K Ramachandran said: “the Government will stand by the people in whichever court the company goes. The right over water and air is the right to live. The Government will not allow stopping of these two lifelines of the people.”

On 4 January 2006, following decisions of the Kerala High Court, the Village Council renewed the Coca Cola company’s licence for three months but laid out thirteen conditions. The first of these was that the company shall not use groundwater from Perumatty Panchayat for industrial purposes, or for producing soft drinks, aerated carbonate beverages or fruit juice. The Village Council cited the 2004 Supreme Court decision of M C Mehta v Union of India and the notification by the Kerala State Groundwater Department that village is ‘over exploited’ with regard to groundwater.

In June 2006, the newly elected State Government of Kerala assured community leaders that it will take proactive measures against the Coca-Cola bottling plant in south India. On June 15th 2006, Chief Minister Mr. V. S. Achutanandan and other cabinet members submitted a memorandum outlining their demands. These demands included the permanent closure of the bottling plant in Kerala, compensation for the affected community members and prosecution of the Coca-Cola Company for criminal offences.

In August 2006, this brought a new twist to the ongoing saga. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board ordered a ban on the manufacture and sale of Coca Cola in the State questioning the safety of the product itself, based on allegations that it contained pesticides and harmful chemicals in a report by an NGO, the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

Coca Cola put out a press release stating:

“We are completely confident in the safety of our soft drinks in India because they are produced to the same level of purity, regarding pesticides, as the stringent EU criteria for bottled water.

We support the adoption of stringent, science-based rules by the Indian government regarding levels of pesticides in soft drinks. The rules should be based on sound and validated testing methodologies. We continue to work with relevant government bodies, industry associations, non government organizations (NGOs) and the scientific community to develop and finalize criteria and associated testing methods for pesticides in soft drinks.

We have the same uncompromising commitment to product safety and quality in India and everywhere we offer our beverages around the world, and independent third parties regularly audit all plants for compliance. The Coca-Cola Company has stringent criteria for all of the ingredients used in our beverages. These criteria are backed by internationally accepted analytical testing protocols for these ingredients.

Our soft drinks in India have been regularly tested and evaluated by the world renowned and independent Central Science Laboratories (CSL) and all tests show no detectable level of pesticides.” – Coca Cola Media Statement Regarding the Safety of Coca Cola Soft Drinks in India, 9 August 2006.

However, in September 2006, the High Court of Kerala set aside the orders of the Government of Kerala and the State Food (Health) Authority banning the manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola in the State. The High Court observed that the ban could not be justified since it was based solely on a report by an NGO.

The State Government of Kerala has now challenged the extraction of water by Coca Cola in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The State Government argues that the company is taking water from poor communities, but according to a press article in October 2006, the Village Council was not pressing for the case in the Supreme Court to be listed for hearing. It appears to believe that as long as the conditions imposed by the Village Council are not fulfilled, the plant cannot reopen.

Nevertheless, water remains a problem for the villagers. With its groundwater still polluted, Plachimada now gets its drinking water through pipes, that provide water for only a few hours once in two days, and through tanker lorries which also arrive once in two days. Fifteen tanker-lorries of water are supplied by the government, and 15 more by the company.

Villagers remain particularly concerned at the pollution of the scarce remaining groundwater and land which they blame on the discharge by the Coca-Cola company of its waste into the surrounding fields.

Although the Coca Cola factory in Plachimada has remained closed since 2004, locals are not satisfied with simply closing the plant; they want justice for the damage caused to health and the environment. As the protestors complain:

“It’s true that the company is not functioning, but that is not enough. We must get compensation for all the crimes committed by the company.”

Whether or not the ban finally stays, the agitation in front of the factory gate is continuing. As Kaliamma, one of the several tribal women squatting in the temporary ‘agitation tent’ says: “Our problems have not been solved.”

Global protests against Coca Cola

Protests about over-extraction of ground water in India and Sri Lanka by Coca Cola’s subsidiary companies are impacting on the parent company. Strong concerns dominated the company’s annual general meeting on 19 April, 2006, in Delaware, USA. A group of protesters shouted outside the meeting, waving banners with messages such as: “Coca-Cola: Stop De-Hydrating the World” and “Coca-Cola: Destroying Lives, Livelihoods and Communities.”

Inside the meeting, nearly 20 shareholders spoke on behalf of campaigns from India and Colombia. A proposal tabled by a shareholder called on the company to “prepare a report on the potential environmental and public health damage of each of its plants, affiliates and proposed ventures extracting water from areas of water scarcity in India”, but failed to receive any positive response from the company.

In its statement against the proposal, Coca Cola stated that it “recognizes that water is a precious natural resource under growing stress around the world.” It set out the actions that the company has taken to address the risks associated with water extraction and dealt with the complaints in Kerala.

“As to groundwater issues in southern India specifically, the Kerala High Court ruling released in April 2005 (the result of a year-long independent study) stated that our facility was not the cause of water shortages in that community. The study showed that a cycle of three years of short monsoon seasons in the Kerala area was the main contributor to the local water shortages. Through our rainwater harvesting efforts in several communities and plant operations in India, we currently are returning a significant portion of the water we remove from aquifers for production purposes.

“Additionally, the Company has initiated partnerships to set up local rainwater harvesting projects in communities around the country and to mobilize local residents behind these water conservation efforts. These projects combine modern technology with the reinstatement of traditional methods of water management that had fallen into disrepair in some local communities.

“The Board understands the need and desire for transparency in all matters including environmental safety and health issues related to our operations in India and elsewhere. However, we feel that this proposal is unnecessary at this time because our above-described existing environmental, health and safety policies, practices, and reporting methods provide a wide range of information regarding the impacts of our operations throughout India and the world. Furthermore, the Board believes that producing the report called for in this proposal would create a redundant use of Company human and financial resources.”

The campaign against Coca Cola has spread, particularly on college and university campuses, as well as among trade unionists and religious organisations. The India Resource Centre published a press release the day following the Shareholder meeting stating: “Even as Coca-Cola officials were trying to deal with the scores of protesters at its meeting, the campaign to hold Coca-Cola accountable was producing damning results for the company. The Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan, New York, a graduate school of theology which trains students to be ministers in the Christian faith, just announced on Tuesday that it was banning the sale of Coca-Cola products on its campus.

In India, a new campaign was announced in Gangaikondan, in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, against a Coca-Cola bottling plant under construction. And a massive rally is planned in Plachimada, Kerala on April 22, where Coca-Cola’s bottling plant has remained shut down for over a year because the village council has refused to renew Coca-Cola’s license to operate.”

In November, 2006, the Chairman and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company, E. Neville Isdell, spoke about the challenges to Coca Cola in India at the Nature Conservancy in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. He remarked:

“In India, we have been challenged to demonstrate our commitment to water stewardship. While we are not even close to being one of the largest users of water, we are certainly one of the most visible, and have been subject to criticism that we are depleting groundwater aquifers in the State of Kerala. Let me be very clear: Coca-Cola has a shared interest with the communities where we operate in healthy watersheds — because they sustain life and our business. And the last thing we would ever do is spend millions of dollars to build a plant that would run itself dry.

“Accordingly, we are working with many partners across India to improve watershed management, and with the Central Ground Water Authority, local governments and communities to expand the use of simple and effective rainwater harvesting technology. To date, we have installed rainwater harvesting systems in 200 locations, including schools and farms, that are helping recharge aquifers when the rains come.”

Sources: This section is based on a wide variety of sources including court judgements, press releases and official statements from Coca Cola. These include: Permatty Grama Panchayat vs state of Kerala, High Court of Kerala 2003; Coca-Cola: Continuing Battle in Kerala, Coca-cola plant must stop straining water Indian Resource Centre July 10, 2003; Coca-cola plant must stop straining water, The Guardian 19 December 2003; W.A.N0.2125 of 2003 and W.A.N0215 of 2004 Judgment 7th day of April 2005, M. Ramachandran and K.P Balachandran, JJ High court of Kerala 2005; Coca-Cola Protestors Attacked by police: four hospitalized, R. Ajayan, Plachimada Solidarity Committee (India) Amit Srivastava, India Resource Center, August 2005; Kerala Pollution Board orders Coke plant to close, Asian News International 8/20/2005; State defends village council decision to revokes Indian licence, Indian Resource Centre, September 2005; Health Minister: Coke plant will not be allowed to function The Hindu, 25 October2005; Kerala Government Assures Proactive Action Against Coca-Cola Meeting with Community Leaders Ends in Major Commitments from State Officials, Indian Resource Centre : 19 June, 2006; Kerala assures proactive action against Coca-Cola one world. South Asian; Article by M Suchitra and O.N. Venugopal, 03 Oct 2006, The Quest Features & Footage, Kochi, cited on the India Together website; Shareowner Proposal Regarding Environmental Impacts of Operations in India (Item 7)by William C. Wardlaw, III, Annual Meeting of Coca Cola Shareholders, 2006; press releases, Coca Cola Company; articles from the India Resource Centre website.

Coca Cola is the leading manufacturer and retailer of non-alcoholic beverage in the world. The company is best known for its flagship product, Coca-Cola, a non-alcoholic carbonated drink, loved throughout the world by kids and adults alike. Coca-cola or Coke as it is known by people around the world can be found in more than 200 countries with 1.8 billion drinks being served each day. Here is a SWOT and PESTEL analysis of the soft-drink giant.

External Analysis

The drink was originally manufactured as a patent medicine by John Pemberton who got addicted to morphine after being wounded in the civil war and was looking for a substitute drink.

The drink was originally developed as a cocoa wine and was registered as a non-alcoholic version of Pemberton’s other famous invention, French Cocoa Wine Tonic. He claimed that the drink had medicinal properties and could cure a host of diseases.

In 1892, the Coca-Cola company was formed which started manufacturing the drink on a commercial basis.

Outdoor advertising started in Georgia in 1894. Since then advertising has played a major role in the promotion of Coke.

According to 2005 report, the beverage is currently sold in 200 countries with 1.8 billion drinks being sold every day.

According to the 2007 report of the company, almost 50 percent of the sales come from USA, followed by Third World countries of India, Mexico and China which contribute 37 percent of the sales and finally by the rest of the world which accounts for about 20 percent of the sales.

The company is a publicly traded company and is listed in New York Stock Exchange and Dow Jones Industrial Average. Coke stocks are considered to be one of the most important stocks in the world and their performance at the markets usually determines the performance of the stock markets as well. Holding a stock of the company is considered to be a lucrative enterprise with a single stock brought with 40 dollars way back in 1919 being valued at 9.8 million dollars at the current market rates.

Coke is the top selling aerated beverage in the world. However, it is not unrivalled. Its main competitors are Pepsi-Cola or simply Pepsi owned by the Pepsi Company and RC Cola owned by Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. In some markets, Pepsi outsells Coke.

Internal Analysis

Besides the iconic Coke brand, the company sells almost 500 branded products in more than 200 countries. Some of the important varieties are Diet Coke (low calorie drink directed towards the female population), Fanta (a product originally developed in Germany during the war years), Sprite (Coke’s answer to the highly popular 7 Up), flavored cokes (vanilla, cherry etc) and Coke Zero (another version of diet coke directed primarily targeting the male).

Advertising is the principal channel through which the company reaches out to its customers. Coke Ads have left a profound impact on American culture and the company is credited with introducing the red and white Santa.

The company has been associated with a number of sporting events and the iconic Coke bottles have featured in numerous films and other cultural representations. This is how the company has build up its legendary public image.

SWOT Analysis

Strength

1. It is the best global brand in the world in terms of revenue, profits, stock market performance and brand image.

2. The company holds the largest market share (almost 40 percent) of the cola industry.

3. It has the most extensive marketing and distribution network in the world with presence in more than 200 countries with 1.8 billion drinks being sold every day.

4. Strong advertising presence with more than 3 million dollars being earmarked every year.

5. It can exert significant power over the suppliers.

6. The company is increasing focusing on CSR programs like energy conservation, water recycling, packaging etc. This has helped it to build a socially responsible image of the company.

Weakness

1. The principle focus of the company is aerated beverages like Coke, Sprite and Fanta. However, this limited focus might prove detrimental for the company if the world is moving towards healthier drinks.

2. The product portfolio of Coke unlike that of Pepsi is highly undiversified. While Pepsi has diversified in both food and beverages, Coke has concentrated only on drinks. This singular focus on carbonated drinks may cost the company if markets for such drinks shrink in future.

3. The company has 8 billion dollars of debt in the market which is another negative point.

4. Coke has faced flak from experts who have criticized the water consumption policy of the company in regions with water scarcity.

5. Finally although Coke sells more than 500 types of product; yet only a few products result in more than 1 billion dollars sales.

Opportunities

1. Consumption of packaged drinking water and aerated beverages is expected to grow every year in Third World countries.

2. With the new trend of fitness and health gaining grounds, the company will benefit a lot from the promotion of low calorie and low sugar drinks like Diet Coke and Coke Zero.

3. Another significant way the company can expand its market is to acquire companies already existing in the Third World and BRICS nations.

4. Entry into packaged food is another way the company can expand its markets.

Threats

1. One of the serious threats comes from the popular perception that sugar based drinks lead to various health problems. The company will not prosper if this perception battle is not won.

2. More than 60 percent of the revenue comes from foreign markets. Weak currency performance of other countries will hamper the sales of the company.

3. Water resources continue to be a problem.

4. Rising raw material cost may lead to higher production costs and low profit ratios.

5. Pepsi and RC cola have given stiff competition in emerging markets.

6. Finally markets in developed countries are already saturated.

PESTLE Analysis

Political

The boycott of Coke, the most potent symbol of American capitalism, by the Arab League in wake of the Iraq war declined the company’s sales in Middle Eastern countries.

Economic

Economic recession can have the greatest negative impact on the company. People tend to cut back on non-essential items like carbonated drinks. As such recession of 2008-2010 had a deep impact on the sales of Coco Cola.

Social

As mentioned before, the perception battle is the hardest which Coke has to fight. More and more people are turning to healthier food and drinks and Coke being a high sugar and high calorie drink is fast losing the support of health conscious people.

Technological

Technological advancement in television and the internet means that the company can reach more people than before by using these innovative channels of communication. On the other hand, recycling plastic bottles and tin cans can lower the cost of production.

Legal

Coca Cola was sued for racial discrimination in the late 1990s when it was found out that the black employees were discriminated against in the company. This led to a massive face loss.

Environmental

Two of the most significant environmental factors are pesticides and the water problem. It has been alleged that Coca Cola’s products in India contains toxins such as Lindane, DDT, Malathion and Chlorpyrifos. These toxins have been associated with cancer and breakdown of the immune system. Use of water for distillation and processing in areas of acute water shortages have been criticized by environmental activists.

How MyAssignmenthelp.com help in writing management case studies?

Case studies are detailed investigative accounts of individual entities using the disciplinary knowledge of a particular subject. Marketing, law and nursing case studies are the most common case studies encountered by students.

Case Study Assignment Help is now provided by world’s best assignment help service provider MyAssignmenthelp.com. We have with us experienced tutors, professionals and subject experts to provide quality assignment help. Our case study assignment help service is provided to students from Australia, UK and USA. Our case study assignment help experts work under strict deadlines and are committed to deliver high quality help solutions to students. The assignment help provided comes with guarantee of first class assignment, plagiarism-free paper backed by impeccable citations and bibliography.

To excel in your case studies (be it in marketing, nursing or law) and get assignment help, just follow the simple steps below:

Log on to our website. You can also call us at our 24x7 customer support center. Our subject experts are ready to provide you with assignment help solutions at any time of the day. You will either have to fill in the details of your assignments or let our customer executive know about your problem.

Then our customer service executive will call you back with free assignment help quotes.

Pay through our website using Pay pal or any other international credit or debit cards and get your assignment delivered to your mailbox on time.